Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre 🚐 22:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Or you will get reverted or blocked. Take it to the talk page first. Rjensen ( talk) 20:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.

–– FormalDude (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! —  SamX [ talk ·  contribs] 01:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi JohnAdams1800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democratic Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You've been marking nearly all of your edits as minor. Although it's true that the edits you've been making aren't huge, sweeping changes, they do substantially change the meaning of the prose you're editing, and therefore should not be marked as minor. Thanks, —  SamX [ talk ·  contribs · he/him] 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information. I'll apply this going forward. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Just letting you know that I removed the thumbs of the cities to fix the sandwiched text at Midwestern United States#German Americans. I saw that you were trying to fix the formatting and I believe this takes care of it. 636Buster ( talk) 16:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi JohnAdams1800! Thank you for your edits to Factions in the Democratic Party (United States). It looks like you've copied or moved text from Democratic Party (United States) into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek ( talk) 23:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello JohnAdams1800! Your additions to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 19:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political positions of the Democratic Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality Act. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Allegations of misconduct by George Santos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of misconduct by George Santos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Daniel Case ( talk) 03:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi John, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that you are contributing in good faith for the better of the encyclopedia, I am concerned that based on some of your recent edit summaries, some of which is bordering on WP:Stonewalling. Around the beginning of 2023, especially in years articles, we have had quite a few issues with regard to some editors' compliance with the stonewalling guidelines and one even being TBanned from Years entirely.

Some of your edits and comments do seem to imply that you wish we reinstate the old International Notability standards, the subject of an essay I wrote against implementing. If you wish to bring these standards back, it's going to be most beneficial for your cause that you propose them directly and not act as if a consensus existed. I understand that I may be fear-mongering, but I would like to give you a gentle reminder so we avoid a situation similar to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., which we already had on ANI with regard to years. Thanks, and happy editing! InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 16:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Heya John. I noticed that despite some pings on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years inviting you to discuss on practices, I haven't seen your opinion. These discussions have a pretty big impact on years, and consider this a formal invitation to join us especially considering how frequently you contribute to the Years articles. Thanks! InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I replied to your top comment on "Was there ever a clearly-discussed consensus that Main Year Articles are to be international only?" Thank you for formally inviting me. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 22:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your contributions to Joshua P. Kolar. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Let'srun ( talk) 03:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Example: "Yet expanding postgraduate enrollments cannot solve the problem of graduate unemployment as it can only offer some relief or postpone the current employment pressure". Wikipedia articles should not take a position on "solutions" to a "problem". The draft is also essay-like in giving large amounts of background context that would not be within the topic's scope e.g. in "Education policy-making". Wikipedia articles link to existing articles to provide context beyond the minimum necessary to understand the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Graduate unemployment in China and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv ( talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, JohnAdams1800! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Bilorv ( talk) 18:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Graduate unemployment into Draft:Graduate unemployment in China. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 in public domain into Draft:2024 in American public domain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2024 in American public domain, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Digital Copyright Act, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Tartar Torte 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

You said here that there was a consensus to not include the content which you reverted. Could you direct to me where that consensus is? As far as my knowledge goes, a talk page discussion was just opened. 33ABGirl ( talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Talk:2024#2024 Haneda Airport runway collision and Attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 16:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Please explain to me how one person opening a discussion is considered a consensus. 33ABGirl ( talk) 16:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi @ 33ABGirl I just want to add some context as to why the inclusion of this event is so contentious. Editors in years have previously taken strong stances on transportation disasters where they feel domestic flights and those with low death tolls don't belong in main year articles. For instance, Tara Air Flight 197 a flight that killed 22 people in 2022 is not in the main year article for 2022 as it was considered domestic, and I personally found myself fighting for inclusion of a deadlier air disaster that same year.

I think editors who frequently work on year articles, including myself, have been working on an unwritten consensus as to what warrants inclusion while not doing a good enough job explaining why. Hopefully the talkpage entry can better allow everyone to reach a consensus, even if it isn't something these users agree with. PaulRKil ( talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ PaulRKil Thank you for providing this clarification. I have no objections to inclusion based on documented consensus. My issue here is that the content was removed with the edit summary there is a consensus that.....didn't merit an entry in this article, when there was clearly no discussion on the content beforehand. This was a straightforwardly untrue statement, so I wanted an explanation for it. 33ABGirl ( talk) 04:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page 2024 has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. As there has been no further response from you to the previous discussion, please consider this a formal warning against using false edit summaries in the future. 33ABGirl ( talk) 14:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economic history of the United Kingdom into Protectionism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 06:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:2024, you may be blocked from editing. 33ABGirl ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, you recently added the line about Frederick the Great's sexuality. I have no problem with the statement although I'm not sure that it's germane to the topic. If you leave it in, please add the five sources for footnote 20 that are now raising no-target errors. Thanks. Andy02124 ( talk) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Hell's Kitchen (American season 22), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Prix.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Talk:Joe Kent#"far-right_political_candidate"_references_do_not_cite_any_sources Can I get your opinion on that dispute? Tonymetz ( talk) 01:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit summary was unwarranted. Vandalism--Vladimir Putin's statements alone do not qualify to be on this page... Please be aware that the word vandalism has a very specific meaning on WP, which does not include good-faith additions. 33ABGirl ( talk) 05:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Educational attainment in the United States into Higher education bubble in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Animal Farm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I did not add original research--the dogs in Animal Farm represent the secret police of the USSR (i.e. Cheka, NKVD, KGB, etc.) that were used to suppress dissent and conduct purges in the Soviet Union.

I am familiar with the history of the Soviet Union (I edited the Russian Civil War), and Mollie represents the White emigres who benefitted from the Tsarist system and fled Russia for Constantinople and Europe.

Similarly Stalin's liquidation of the kulaks, or smallholder peasants, was part of his Five Year Plans and purges in the 1930s. The hens represent the kulaks because they are part of the animals (the proletariat), and were forced to surrender their eggs (land) to Napoleon (Stalin).

JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Making such claims without providing any sources to back up your assertions is the definition of original research. DonIago ( talk) 06:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply